The Great Uniter

(Reprinted from the issue of July 12, 2007)

As
soon as I heard that President Bush had commuted E. Lewis Libbys
prison sentence, in view of Libbys exceptional public
service, I remembered his boast: Im a uniter, not a
divider. Not only has partisan fury grown red-hot in Washington
during his presidency; he has split his own party, much of which now wants an
end to the Iraq war.

Ive never
been able to work up much passion over the Libby case; like most Americans,
Im still a bit puzzled that a grown man with a nickname like
Scooter could achieve not only middle age, but access to the
highest levels of power.

In a year and a half
Bush will be a former president. Hes already being dismissed as a
lame duck, especially with the embarrassing failure of his immigration bill
 another party-splitter. Even though nobody knows who his successor
will be, his administration is exhausted, unless of course he can start
another war.

Even Richard Nixon,
after being forced out of office in disgrace, managed to salvage some dignity
in his last years. His intelligence was respected, he was a highly literate man,
and he could write books worth pondering on foreign policy. Nobody made
jokes about how stupid Nixon was.

But what will Bush
do? Its hard to imagine any positive role for him, especially with his
father, who avoided his worst foreign policy blunders, still living as an implicit
rebuke to his Middle Eastern folly.

The only defense I
can offer for Bush is admittedly not a very effective one: Well,
hes not as bad as Lincoln! This theme only appeals to people
who have the historical perspective to realize that Lincoln was to the
American Constitution what Henry VIII was to the British one: a permanently
deformative force, after whom nothing could ever be the same.
Hillary Pipes Up

Still, the Libby commutation had its
funny side. On the campaign trail in Iowa, Hillary Clinton blasted Bush for
blatant cronyism, apparently forgetting her own husbands outright
pardons of far more (and many more) brazen criminals than Libby. Or is she
just utterly shameless?

In fact,
its one measure of Bushs failure that both Clintons are now
so popular. When he was elected in 2000 and the Clintons left the White
House with the furniture, who dreamed that they might, in only a few years,
resume residence at1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? How has the memory of an
impeachment for perjury faded so soon?

It would be just our
luck if our first woman president should be one who prays to Eleanor
Roosevelt. And the thought of listening to Hillarys raucous voice for
four or (gulp!) eight years!
The Lesson of JFK

The cover of the July 2 issue of
Time magazine features one of our least distinguished
presidents, John Kennedy, with a worshipful spread on what we can
learn from JFK. One of the headings is what candidates should
say about faith. The essay, by Nancy Gibbs, offers just the kind of
spiritual guidance Rudy Giuliani craves.

Kennedy wore
his religion lightly. Well, yes. No mention of his constant and cynical
adulteries, apparently unmixed with even a particle of real affection for the
women he used; all Gibbs can marvel at is his adroit political use of his
utterly nominal Catholicism, with a quick and vague reference to his
spiritual journey.

Kennedy supposedly
won the presidency in 1960 by overcoming anti-Catholic bigotry, but his
opponent, Nixon, shrewdly foresaw what was actually to happen: He
told his close advisers that he thought Kennedys religion would hurt
him only in states he wasnt going to win anyway and help him in the
swing states he needed. In the end, Kennedy got 78% of the Catholic
vote and became the first Catholic U.S. president. He remains a great symbol
of American Catholicism.
Why St. Paul Wasnt Rich

Ive been studying and
pondering Christopher Hitchenss best-seller god is not
Great (refusing to capitalize God is part of its
cheekiness), and I think the book is best understood as a spoof. Hitchens is
far too intelligent to believe some of the things he writes, such as that even
Jesus historical existence is in doubt.

But theres a
big market for flamboyant atheism waiting to be tapped, and Hitchens needs
to tap it. He has lost a lot of standing among intellectuals by supporting the
Iraq war, and a frontal assault on religion may be just the ticket to recover
it.

His hero is George
Orwell, but nobody could be more different in style. Orwell is an unbeliever
too, but he plays fair with the reader, never trying to rush or bully. With
Hitchens the reader is never quite sure what hes jeering at;
hes displaying his attitudes, not giving reasons.

Cynical though he is
about religion, its worth pointing out that hes likely to make a
lot more money on his book than St. Paul made on his epistles. Granted, if
the Apostle had gotten a perpetual copyright and lived long enough, he would
have become stupendously wealthy on the royalties, but of course it
didnt quite work out that way, so Hitchens must be said to be the
more successful author, at least on his own terms.
Paris

Paris Hilton seems to get more
attention than any politician, and I dont know whether thats
good news or bad. Shes a very pretty girl, but no prettier than many
others who lack her wealth. And though shes extremely rich, it seems
she cant afford the one thing available to every poor girl:
self-respect.

Whatever happened
to modesty? Why does Paris want a mans first thoughts of her to be
lewd thoughts? This baffles me. I really dont see the point of living
like that.

Every morning I
encounter modestly dressed girls whose attraction is that their demeanor
implies dignity and personality. They have a sense of their own worth that
means infinitely more than any physical appeal. Some man should write a
book about what good men really want in women.

FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and
others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation. Click
here for more information.